<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "+//ISBN 0-9673008-1-9//DTD OEB 1.0 Document//EN"  "http://openebook.org/dtds/oeb-1.0/oebdoc1.dtd"><html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/x-oeb1-document; charset=utf-8" /><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/x-oeb1-css" href="DrBillBio.css" /><title>Bill Wattenburg’s Background: Golden Gate Bridge Traffic Barrier</title></head> <body> <h1>Golden Gate Bridge Traffic Barrier</h1> <h2>(1982–1984)</h2> <p>Another series of newspaper articles in 1982–1984 describe how Wattenburg did the“<a href="BART.html">BART story</a>” again on the over-confident Golden Gate Bridgeengineers who insisted that a moveableanti-collision barrier could not be designed that would fit between the traffic lanes on the bridgeand meet the requirement that it be moved twice each day to allow reallocation of the lanes forrush hour flow. The Bridge’s private engineering firm was being paid over a million dollars ayear to advise the bridge district. Numerous fatal head-on collisions had made this a verycontroversial subject. A frustrated bridge director called on Wattenburg to find a solution. A fewweeks later he came up with a design that stunned the confident engineers—and evidentlyfascinated the press and the public because it was so simple.</p> <p>His solution was to use sections of large-diameter (24″) round steel pipe which are strung togetheron a strong steel cable like a spaghetti necklace. He later proved that the steel pipe is as strong asconventional concrete lane dividers. The steel pipe can be rolled from lane to lane quite easily tochange traffic flow patterns. Once Wattenburg had proved that the problem could be solved by atleast one inexpensive scheme, two other companies quickly came forth with alternate designs oftheir own. Internal politics over where and how money should be spent on bridge improvementshas delayed installation of any of these anti-collision barriers to date. However, other bridgesaround the world have installed movable traffic barriers which are renditions of Wattenburg’spatented design that he offered to give the Golden Gate Bridge District free-of-charge.</p> <p>The head of one embarrassed engineering firm working for the bridge district attackedWattenburg’s credentials to be doing work for the district without having a license as aprofessional engineer (he evidently assumed that Wattenburg must be getting paid). Wattenburg’sterse response to the press was: “I don’t take public money for exposing high-priced fools whopretend to be competent engineers.”</p> <p>Bill Wattenburg and his son, Eric, who was an engineering student at California StateUniversity, Chico, were issued a patent on their movable pipe barrier design in 1987. His sonhad designed the mechanism that automatically rolls the pipe barrier from lane to lane whilekeeping it tied down securely to the bridge deck or roadway at all times. Wattenburg said that hewas about to give up on the pipe barrier idea because he hadn’t solved this problem. Eric pickedup the problem one weekend and found a clever solution that made the whole scheme practical.Eric built a fully operational scale model that he demonstrated to the Golden Gate BridgeDirectors.</p> <p>Wattenburg told us that movable pipe barriers are still the cheapest and best traffic barriersthat can be quickly installed around many places that could be attacked by vehicles carryingbombs or terrorists, such as government buildings, embassies oversees, and troop encampmentsin hostile places. “The military will get around to it someday, after we lose another few hundredof our people.”</p> <hr /> <p><i>Note: It took until late 1998 before anyone paid serious attention toWattenburg’s idea of using the barrier to protect against truck bombs. The SanFrancisco Chronicle reportedon the successful testing performed by Lawrence Livermore National Labs (October 8, 1988).Unfortunately, the device still has not been used to this date.—PKS</i></p> </body></html>